beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 11, 201, the Defendant agreed to receive a loan of KRW 386,00,000 from Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) on April 11, 201, on the date of expiry of the credit extension, on April 11, 2012; 12% per annum; 23% per annum of delayed damage interest rate; and the date of payment of interest as the 11st day of each month.
(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). (b)
After that, the expiration date of the instant loan contract was changed on April 11, 2013 to 12.5% per annum, and the Defendant lost the benefit of time due to its failure to pay interest after April 25, 2012.
C. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank applied for a voluntary auction based on the right to collateral security established on the real estate owned by the Defendant to secure the claim for loans under the instant loan agreement. On July 9, 2013, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank received dividends of KRW 315,596,927 on the date of distribution in the auction procedure, and appropriated the same for principal. As of August 26, 2016, the principal amount was KRW 70,329,617 as of August 26, 2016, and the interest delay damages were 152,259,227.
Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap139, and the plaintiff was appointed as bankruptcy trustee.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest (=70,329,617 152,259,227) under the loan agreement of this case and damages for delay calculated by the rate of interest rate of 23% per annum from August 27, 2016 to the date of full payment for the principal amount of KRW 70,329,617.
3. The defendant's defense is asserted that the principal of the loan under the loan contract of this case was fully repaid, but there is no evidence to support this. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.
4. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant is just, since the plaintiff's claim is justified.